Rivenhall IWMF: a Case for Refusal Through Evidence and Analysis

Rivenhall IWMF: A case for refusal through evidence and analysis

co2

Contents

Executive Summary 4 1. Parishes’ Against Incinerator (PAIN) 6 2. Planning applications: ESS/36/17/BTE and ESS/37/17/BTE 6 2.1 Background 6 2.2 Context 7 3. The need for the IWMF 9 4. Viability 10

2.1 Background 5. TheflexibilityoftheIWMF 11 6. Landscape and visual impact 14 6.1 Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment 14 6.2 Heritage impact 25 6.3 Solar Glint and Glare study 26 6.4 Plume visibility 28 6.5 The stack: height and design details 30 7. The risk to human health 31 7.1 Particles 37 8. CO2 38 8.1 Legislation evolution 38 8.2 Impact on the Braintree area 38 9. The impact on habitats and wildlife 41 10. The impact on ground and surface waters 44 11. Loss of agricultural land 47 12. Theimpactonhighways 48 13. The 25-year plan 50 14. TheEApermit 52 15. NPPF 53 16. Planning integrity 54 17. Conflict 55 18. Community engagement 56 19. Conclusion 57 19.1 General conclusions 57 19.2 Stack height increase: specific conclusions 58

1 Glossary

Abbreviation Definition AD Anaerobic Digestion AEROMOD Airflow modelling software AOD Above Ordinance Datum BDC Braintree District Council BDLP Braintree District Local Plan Review CHP Combined Heat and Power Co2 Carbon Dioxide D&R Development and Regulation EA Environment Agency ECC Essex County Council G&G Glint and Glare GF Gent Fairhead GFC Gent Fairhead Company HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles IEMA Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment IWMF Integrated Waste Management Facility Km Kilometers KwH Kilo Watt Hours LVIA Landscape Visual Impact Assessment MBT Mechanically and Biologically Treated Waste MRF Mechanically Recovered Fuel MW Mega Watt NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPW National Planning Policy for Waste NWMP National Waste Management Plan for England O3 Ozone PAIN Parishes Against Incinerator PM Particulate Matter RCF Recycling & Composting facility

2 RLWP Replacement Local Waste Plan SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SoS Secretary Of State SRF Solid Recovered Fuel TPA Tonnes Per annum TZV Theoretical Zone of Visual Impact UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WLP Local waste Plan ZVI Zone of Visual Impact

3 Executive Summary

The planning decisions before the committee associated with the Rivenhall IWMF are:

- To consider amending conditions laid down by the Secretary of State in 2010 (namely condition 56) that restricts the stack to 35m above ground, and

- To consider a subsequent planning application to change the incinerator design by increasing the stack height to 58m above ground but this assumes that the removal of condition 56 is granted.

This report has been prepared on the basis that a recommendation to grant these applications is supported by a positive report to the committee, as would be the case with any case officers report. However, the following summary of the counter arguments also need to be communicated.

We realise that there is an element of repetition regarding arguments that may not appear be directly relevant to this application to increase the stack height, and that these points have been made in the past. They have been included to demonstrate the cumulative impact of the facility (not just the increase in stack), the number of applications for variance since the original planning application was granted, and the significant amount of objection throughout the county:

1. There is now no clear need for this facility: Essex recycles a significant proportion of its waste (and this figure is continually increasing), with the remaining recovered fuel incinerated in Holland and Germany at existing plants. Permitting this addition variation turns Essex into a net importer of waste as it will involve almost 137,000 additional truck movements annually (assuming 404 per day and 300 days operation as granted).

2. After due diligence from potential financial backers was carried out, funding was withdrawn, which if the facility goes ahead, could leave Essex County Council exposed

3. The flexibility of the IWMF has been compromised due to the changes in proportion (whereby incineration was increased and other processes significantly reduced) in 2016, that were permitted without consultation with the EA. Allowing the stack variation and exposing ECC to further changes that are likely to be required seriously undermines the integrity of the planning system and the validity of any conditions placed on this and other applications.

4. The landscape and visual impact on the surrounding areas is significantly exacerbated by the nature of the Essex countryside. The flawed LVIA study ignores key receptors and has not been prepared in accordance with industry best practice guidelines: GLVIA 3. The report distorts the contribution of the stack to this landscape in terms of height and appearance. The solar glint and glare study misrepresents the reflective impact, a heritage impact study has not been provided and the applicant intends to contravene condition 17 of the 2010 Inspector's report, which specified no plume visibility.

5. The committee needs to be aware of the level of uncertainty surrounding this project some eight years since permission was granted. In the original Inspector’s report, it was recognised that the applicant had not engaged with the EA at that time. The Inspector stated that any changes, including to stack height, may not be adequate and ‘may not represent good practice at that time’.This position was accepted and agreed to by the applicant at that time. It took five years for the applicant to seek a permit from the Environment Agency, even though this was a crucial element of its proposal, and within this timescale certain parameters of design were altered. We contend that many design and construction elements remain unclear now and the designs are incomplete.

6. ECC has a statutory obligation regarding the health and wellbeing of individuals who live in Essex. There have been numerous reports confirming the adverse effects that poor air quality and high levels of air pollution (such as those recorded in Braintree) have on health, particularly on that of vulnerable groups such as the young and elderly. There is no evidence that ECC is taking any action to mitigate the effects of the facility or even recognise its contribution to air pollution, which is a failure of its duty as a public health authority.

7. There is significant latency between the applied EA standards and current understanding of the impacts of air pollution, air quality and small particles with regard to asthma, dementia and other serious conditions.

4 8. Minimal consideration has been given to the impact on climate change with the facility producing approximately 600,000 TPA of CO2 plus the significant emissions associated with transporting this amount of fuel to the facility. There is now a duty for councils to consider sustainable and climate friendly developments and the changes in capacities move the IWMF down the waste hierarchy, into "disposal to atmosphere".

9. New evidence suggests that air pollution has a significant impact on flora and fauna. The environmental statement does not comply with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 120: the applicant should provide a comprehensive EIA assessment.

10. The River Blackwater is a protected river and is classified as over-abstracted. The applicant has indicated that a year- round abstraction licence is required to operate the facility. This would have a negative environmental impact on the river and contravene condition 19 of the current planning permission.

11. Agricultural land and the human food chain will be negatively impacted by the build-up of particulate deposits on the land.

12. As a direct impact of the facility, it is estimated that over 17 million additional truck miles will be necessary, using 8.6 million litres of diesel, generating in excess of 31,000 TPA of Co2. The energy expended in transporting materials to and from the site will exceed that generated.

13. The EA permit has been granted but not for the facility as permitted in 2010. The 2010 design was refused a permit. In addition, the EA states that a recommended stack height does not assume planning should or would be granted. Consequently, no weight should be attributed to the granting of the EA permit.

14. The committee needs to be aware of a serious conflict of interest caused by the fact that ECC owns the waste from Basildon; it is targeted at the Rivenhall IWMF as stated in the RLWP and ECC has waste credits for it. As a result of this, the committee will be making a decision that has the potential for significant and direct financial gain, which compromises ECC's transparency rules and effectively makes it judge and jury in this decision-making process.

15. The NPPF calls for public and community engagement, which was echoed in the scoping opinion, but there has been no engagement with the public despite numerous requests for this to take place. The committee needs to know that the amount of unaggregated objections is almost 4,000, and there were several thousand objections to the EA permit, compared to just one or two supportive responses.

5 1. Parishes Against Incinerator (PAIN)

Formed in 2015, PAIN represents several thousand residents from Coggeshall, Feering, Silver End, Stisted, Rivenhall, Kelvedon, and Witham.

Throughout the long planning history of this scheme, there have been other pressure groups but PAIN is the first to have garnered the support of five Parish Councils and a Town Council. It has the support of the local Witham MP,Rt Hon Priti Patel, County Councillors Robert Mitchell and James Abbott. District Councillors Lady Patricia Newton and Lynette Bowers-Flint are of the opinion that it would not be entirely inappropriate for ECC to refuse this planning application.

Through local fundraising, PAIN has been able to engage consulting engineers, financial professionals, planning experts, landscape architects, and Visual Impact consultants.

To date, over 3000 letters of objection to the latest planning application have been lodged at County Hall, and several hundred letters have been sent to The National Casework Planning unit requesting that The Secretary of State calls-in the application.

2. Planning applications: ESS/36/17/BTE and ESS/37/17/BTE

We have prepared this document to highlight the many reasons for refusing this application based on ‘material considerations’ and in the light of evolved and evolving changes to the use of incineration as a method of dealing with waste in an area where recycling rates are high.

Of course, PAIN has not seen the Case Officer’s recommendation but we must doubt that it will include much of the information we are offering for your consideration.

We are sending this in ‘reasonable time’ and well ahead of the D&R committee meeting so these points can be considered by you accordingly and based on the precedent set in Glidewell LJ in Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v SSE (1990) 61 P & CR 343. Therefore, we also believe it is a legal requirement as a committee member/councillor to understand this information and to be able to consider it as part of the deliberations on the applications.

2.1 Background

The following is a factual record of the planning applications associated with this case. It is intended to provide both a background and a summary of the history behind the incinerator.

In 2010, Gent Fairhead was granted planning permission for the IWMF at Rivenhall following an appeal to the Secretary of State Inspectorate. This was conditional with the SoS adding some 60 limits on the IWMF, including restrictions on size, design freezes prior to construction, stack height, geographic limits and plume visibility. The size of the incineration plant was 360,000 TPA and had proportionate AD and MBT.

In 2015, a planning extension of two years was applied for with one year granted. In the same year, the ‘geographic limits’ were removed by ECC. Further to this, ECC awarded AD and MBT contracts elsewhere. In February 2016, the capacities were changed, reducing AD and MBT treated waste by 60%, and increasing incineration to 595,000 TPA.

In March 2016, construction started with the design frozen (stack at 35m AOD above ground). In December of the same year, the first application for a EA permit was refused based on the initial design and a stack of 35m AOD but with the revised capacities. In early 2017, a new EA permit was applied for; this was based on a 55m AOD stack but was increased to 58m AOD during the application period.

In June 2017, a scoping opinion was issued by ECC based on the indications from the new permit application that the stack will require. In ECC's scoping opinion, conditions and guidance were given to Gent Fairhead, listing the areas they needed to address in revised application.

6 In July 2017, Gent Fairhead applied for a planning change of the condition known as condition 59, which limits the stack to 35m AOD, but this failed to comply with the scoping opinion. Gent Fairhead also applied for planning permission to increase the stack height to 58m AOD.

In September 2017, it was announced in the financial press that the banks considering the financing of the IWMF had withdrawn their offer following a process of due diligence.

The Planning Inspector’s 2010 original approval was a ‘balanced decision’ that considered the following points as material during the inspection process:

- The need for a facility of the proposed size;

- The viability of the proposed scheme including the de-inking and paper pulping facility;

-Whether there is a need for the scheme to provide flexibility to accommodate future changes in waste arisings; changes in the way waste is dealt with; and changes that may occur in the pulp paper industry. If so, whether the scheme takes account of such need;

- The effects of the scheme on the living conditions of local residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance, air quality, odour, dust, litter, and light pollution;

- The extent of any risk to human health;

- The effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the highway network;

- The impact on the local rights of way network;

- The impact on ground and surface waters;

- The implications of the associated loss of Grade 3a agricultural land;

- The effect of the proposal on habitats, wildlife and protected species;

- The impact on the setting and features of special architectural or historic interest of listed buildings in the locality.

We intend to demonstrate herein that, due to the changes highlighted above, more recent and up to date knowledge, and with additional expert reports, this application is either not valid, needs further inspection by a body with appropriate independence and expertise, or must be refused.

2.2 Context

The applications ESS/36/17/BTE and ESS/37/17/BTE are to:

- Vary the inspector's conditions that limit the stack height to 35m above ground and

- Implement a taller stack, 58m above ground in accordance with the permit requirements of the Environment Agency

Very little detail has been given as to how the stack will be constructed and how it cladding will be maintained to retain its mirror finish. For maintenance to take place, at least annually but in all probability twice annually, the plant will need to be shut down. Every re-start will involve much higher levels of emissions than have been stated whilst it is in continuous operation. (In this respect, it can be equated to a car’s emissions with a cold engine compared to those when warm.)

The 35m application was fatally flawed. No other facility has such a short stack height. Indeed, a much newer application for a facility at Hoddesdon which would treat 350,000tpa was submitted to the EA and Herts County Council with two stacks, each of which were 78m high. This facility was called-in, in February 2018.

7 The applicant’s original assumptions were a blend of the original 2010 documentation to which were added the revised capacities. However, gas dispersion models and human health reports were simply amended and not re-written as required by the scoping opinion.

The applicant’s solution to the refusal of the first permit was to change the stack height in two parts; by increasing the amount of stack showing above the ground by 23m so that the new stack height was 58m above ground level and to move the position of its base so that there is only 20m below ground. As the facility is set within a quarried site, there is a further 50m which is neither underground nor visible on the landscape.

In summary, the key points to note are:

- During the inquiry the Inspector requested clarification with regard to the stack height and was assured by the applicant that 35m above ground was sufficient based on their designs and this is why the limit was set at that figure.

- The conditions were set down to prevent unnecessary and over development of the facility

- The philosophy and intent was to accommodate Essex waste only, limiting the size and geography of operation

- The Inspector noted that there had been only limited engagement with the EA. In fact, no EA permit application was made until 2015, when it was subsequently refused due to the stack height being too low for both the original and the revised capacities and not utilising best available technologies

- The applicant was warned by ECC that it was proceeding at risk but it started construction without the EA permit. This appears to be out of necessity, due to the limited time available before the expiry of the extensions to the planning permission to begin groundworks

- The applicant applied for the permit without revising their designs following the change in capacities in February 2016

- The permit granted in September 2017 is based on designs for the revised capacities and not the existing planning permissions

- Construction is unlikely to be completed within the time limit as set by the Inspector

- The financial viability is low as a result of the withdrawal of funding based on the due diligence process that was carried out by potential financiers.

There is clearly a conflict between what the original Inspector's report was trying to achieve and the facility that is currently proposed. We believe that the changes previously granted and those that now stand before the committee, contradict both the spirit and philosophy behind the original decision made in 2010.

In addition, planning frameworks and policy designed to protect both humans and the environment that simply were not in place at the time of the original decision must now be taken into consideration. The impact of these changes is further emphasised when considered against deeper knowledge of air pollution, the accepted impact of CO2 on climate change, and up-to-date understanding of waste management.

Planning conditions are imposed to control and limit developments. Major amendments like these that remove them, if allowed, undermine the integrity of the planning process.

8 3. The need forthe IWMF Recycling in Essex is now at an all-time high. Higher targets are predicted and are likely to be proposed, but more importantly recycling is significantly higher that when the original 2010 decision was made. Currently Essex waste undertakes a road journey of some 50 miles to a central sorting facility in Basildon where approximately 210,000 TPA of RDF is generated after the recyclable material is removed. This RDF is then exported to existing overseas incinerators for energy recovery.

Given that, generally, 1 tonne of bottom and fly ash is produced from every 3 tonnes of waste incinerated, the exported waste results in approximately 70,000 TPA to be disposed of in existing facilities at the overseas sites where it is incinerated.

The IWMF was permitted in 2010, with a ‘balance’ of sustainable waste management and incineration referred to earlier (AD and MBT), including 360,000 TPA of incineration. In addition, the original approval allowed for future need within Essex by providing headroom between the Basildon output and the incineration capacity. This was in keeping with the Inspector’s philosophy that the facility was fuelled only by Essex waste and this also limited the production of fly and bottom ash to just over 120,000 TPA: 1/3 of 360,000. Consequently, there is no current need for this facility in Essex unless we import waste from the rest of the country.

In 2015, ECC’s D&R committee removed the geographical limits on the facility as there was simply insufficient waste in Essex to sustain the facility over its lifecycle with the continued increase in recycling. In addition, ECC’s D&R committee changed the capacities of the facility increasing the incineration to 595,000 TPA. As stated above, the Essex waste currently suitable for incineration totals 210,000 TPA (i.e. exported to existing incinerators from the Basildon plant).

By permitting these changes, the D&R committee will turn Essex from an exporter of small amounts of waste for overseas incineration, at existing plants and using existing infrastructure, into a net importer of waste with all 595,000 tonnes from outside the county. The existing ECC waste solution (using Basildon to sort the waste and then send the fuel overseas), has capacity for our waste and uses existing infrastructure, consequently it can be regarded as sustainable.

Furthermore, bottom and fly ash are toxic and have now been banned in the use of construction materials (primarily roads) as the small particles re-enter the ecosystem, so it can only be disposed of within the special dedicated landfill. Consequently, if this facility is permitted, ECC D&R must create special arrangements to accommodate 198,000 TPA of bottom and fly ash that Essex did not generate (1/3 of the new 595,000 TPA incinerator). Please note that this assumes the SRF generated from Basildon continues to its current destination.

However, if this is not the case and the SRF from Basildon is incinerated at Rivenhall, the above conclusions with respect to the toxic bottom and fly ash are still valid with the only changes being the amounts of imported waste. This then raises a significant question regarding a conflict of interest as ECC (who own the SRF) becomes a client of the applicant.

Recent news and changes in international waste destination would “With more facilities still in the appear to support the need for incineration. However, the reality of these changes is that there is now a huge focus on recycling and construction pipeline, the report reuse. There is greater awareness of the unsustainable nature of packaging. For example, a sandwich with a shelf life of days is forecasts that the UK’s supply of contained within a package that can last for more than a century. treatment capacity will exceed the Consumer concern is leading to changes within the food and packaging industry, instigating the adopting of recovery available quantity of residual mechanisms as seen in Norway and other responsible countries that recover the vast majority of plastic. waste in 2020/21. Were all

These changes will severely impact the amount of fuel available for facilities to operate at full capacity, any incineration in the future. There will not be the volume of together they would limit the UK’s waste available to supply the facility in the long term. There is an overcapacity of incinerators and the development of the Rivenhall recycling rate to no more than IWMF may actually reduce recycling. A report published in August 2017 ( Eunomia, Residual Waste Infrastructure Review: 12th Issue ) 63%.” has said that in just a few years, the supply of treatment capacity will exceed the waste required to fuel it. 9 4. Viability

A further material point that has to be considered is how the facility is to be financed. In late 2017, a project finance industry publication, Inframation News, reported that banks including Banco Sabadell, Barclays, GIB, MUFG and Santander had previously signed up to lend to Wren Renewables – which is also known as Rivenhall IWMF, but were no longer participating. The article went on to report that the developer’s decision to cancel project financing followed a number of delays in the development of the facility, which had yet to secure an environmental permit from the EA.

A review of company filings by Gent Fairhead and its affiliated companies with Companies House, including a range of audited accounts to 30 June 2016 (the latest available), indicates that Gent Fairhead & Co Limited had a net asset position as of that date of £19.7 million. Notes to those accounts indicate that a guarantee had been entered in respect of current and future facilities provided to its fellow group of companies by Barclays Bank, which at the date in question amounted to £11.5 million in favour of Gent Fairhead Holdings Limited, the ultimate holding company.

A review of the Strategic Report accompanying Holdings’ accounts as at the same date, reveals that the group’s existing loan facilities, which had been due for repayment in August 2017, had been extended to 31 August 2018. Holdings’ accounts reveal no other assets, nor sources of external finance, which would be viewed as material in the context of a project of this scale.

That same report also made reference to a third company, Blackwater Aggregates, a 50% partnership with CEMEX (UK) Operations Limited, which owns the Bradwell Quarry near Braintree in Essex. A further review reveals that company has been consolidated, from an accounting perspective, into the financial reporting of CEMEX (UK) Operations Limited, which is the UK subsidiary of a major global cement and aggregate manufacturer and service provider (www.cemex.co.uk; www.cemex.com).

That report further appears to suggest that a fourth company in the Gent Fairhead group of companies, Gent Fairhead Aggregates Limited, may have been a 50% beneficiary of a £5.2 million loan by CEMEX UK (presumably to facilitate the continued operation of the quarry). Against this, one assumes that the appetite of CEMEX UK, as the subsidiary of a major global cement and aggregates supply and services company (with no apparent history of long-term and large scale investment into incinerator plant manufacture and/or operation) to extend further financial assistance to Gent Fairhead for the purposes of supporting the Rivenhall development, would be extremely limited.

For Gent Fairhead to seek to finance this project on balance sheet via a corporate facility alone, would appear quite literally to be betting its entire group of companies on this project. Moreover, if recent industry reporting is to be believed, the company would appear to have few viable long-term financing alternatives.

Combining these factors suggests that, should construction or operations encounter difficulties, there would seem a very real possibility that the project sponsor itself may become insolvent, leaving project risk back with the procuring authority., namely Essex County Council or one or more affiliates thereof.

Gent Fairhead has no history or track record with the operation of incineration and waste management projects, and no operator has been appointed. This does not create confidence.

There is significant uncertainty in the marketplace for this type of facility considering recent changes in national and international waste policies. The Waste and Infrastructure report from Eunomia exposes the overcapacity of incineration plants already built or in the latter stages of construction and commissioning.

PAIN calls upon ECC to undertake a rigorous ‘due diligence’ exercise to determine whether the applicant has the appropriate financial and operational capabilities prior to approving its application

Otherwise it would be difficult to ascertain how due diligence has been served when such a fundamental question as “Who will pay for and operate the facility?” has not been answered.

10 5. The flexibility of the IWMF

The original Inspector's report concluded that the recycling elements and the linked combination of a unit producing electricity, heat and steam and a paper pulping facility was sustainable in planning terms. This ‘balance’ was seriously undermined when the ECC D&R Committee granted consent for the s73 “variation” application in early 2016. This consent greatly reduced the level of recycling and composting (AD). It almost halved the capacity of the paper pulping unit, but increased the capacity of the waste incineration unit from 360,000 TPA to 595,000 TPA- an increase of 65%.

The current version of the plant is now dominated by incineration. Having reviewed the report of the original Inspector, it is clear that this version of the facility would have raised significantly different material planning considerations in terms of justification. These changes in capacity clearly reduce the overall flexibility of the plant. This lack of flexibility is best framed in the accepted waste hierarchy, especially as it has been stated that the use of incineration in this case moves it up the waste hierarchy.

The following drawing represents the established and accepted definition of the waste hierarchy (DEFRA, June 2011) clearly defining each layer where:

- Prevention: using less material in design and manufacture e.g. keeping products for longer, re-use, using less hazardous materials

- Reuse: checking, cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, whole items or spare parts

- Recycling: turning waste into a new substance or product. Includes composting if it meets quality protocols. AD and other forms of organic waste processing are considered recycling

- Recovery: includes AD, incineration with energy recovery, gasification and pyrolysis, which produces energy (fuels, heat and power) and materials from waste; some backfilling

Disposal: landfill and incineration without energy recovery

Prevention

Reuse

Recycling

Recovery

Disposal

Figure 1: Waste hierarchy

11 Using the above approach and focusing on the Recycling, Recovery and Disposal with respect to the current proposal (as amended in February 2016):

- The AD and MBT waste have been reduced by 70% (lower recycling)

- The incineration capacity has increased by 42% with no increase in energy. Consequently, the amended incinerator (February 2016) still generates the same energy but from 595,000 TPA waste, therefore recovering less energy from an even greater capacity (lower recovery)

- The IWMF does not use co-location and has very low energy recovery when compared to plants that are half its size

Considering the above changes to the facility and applying them in the context of the waste hierarchy, a more accurate representation and summary of the facility's position in the waste hierarchy can be derived as shown in the following:

Recycling Anaerobic Digestion and other forms of Organic waste processing are considered recycling. The Rivenhall incinerator has had these sustainable aspects reduced by over 70% in Feb 2016, moving it DOWN the hierarchy.

Recovery Waste incineration of solid fuels with high levels of energy generation are considered recovery.The originally approved incinerator generated 29Mw. The amended Rivenhall incinerator (Feb 16) still generates the SAME energy but from 595,000 tonnes of waste, meaning is recovers LESS energy, moving it DOWN the hierarchy.

Disposal The Rivenhall incineratory does not use co-incineration and recovers very low energy when compared to other similar sites, taking it to the bottom of the waste hierarchy.

Rivenhall incinerator moving down the hierarchy

Figure 2: Revised waste hierarchy

The facility is now not flexible but trends towards ‘incineration only’ and is 'disposal to atmosphere', especially as the AD and MBT contracts have been recently let to other providers. BDC has noted its serious concerns (DR/05/16 ECC D&R February 2016): "Now that the proposals show a dramatic drop in the volume of C & I paper to be recycled, there must equally be a reduction in the extent to which the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) supports the paper pulping function. In this respect, and combined with the reduction in green waste recycling/ recovery through Anaerobic Digestion, there would appear to be a downgrading of its status as a facility that moves waste treatment up the waste hierarchy."

Given the doubts expressed at the appeal stage about the ability to source paper and card (and the market for the de- inked paper) and as the volume to be processed is now to be so much less, the need for the scale of CHP is reduced as well. This brings into doubt the justification for the mix of treatment proposed in the context of waste policy. 12 It is noted that the policy context in which such proposals are considered has also changed significantly since the appeal decision in 2009. The saved policies of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (WLP) remain extant, but are considered somewhat out of date in line with relevant NPPF guidance.

In the absence of up to date waste local plan policies, significant weight is given to the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMP) and National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW).

Relevant saved policies of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (BDLPR) remain extant.

The objectives of policy remain that of promoting the sustainable management of waste in accordance with the aware hierarchy, without giving rise to unacceptable adverse impact on the environment or local amenity.

"In view of all the above factors, the District Council expresses serious reservations about the County Council's decision to consider such a significant change to the waste treatment mix proposed for the IWMF through the Section 73 application route as these changes relate to the fundamental justification and needs case upon which permission was sought and granted. With a significant change to the anticipated treatment mix, the needs case and justification need to be robustly tested in the context of prevailing policy and circumstances."

13 6. Landscape and visual impact

The landscape and visual impact of the proposed increase in stack height is a key material consideration of this planning application. In 2010, the planning Inspectorate imposed some sixty conditions to minimise the visual impact. Two of the sixty limitations as to the final built form of the facility included stack height and plume visibility.

Condition 56 states: "Only one stack shall be erected on the site to service all elements of the IWMF. The height of the stack shall not exceed 85m Above Ordnance Datum". This equates to a height of 35m above surrounding ground levels.

The Inspector associated this limit with the original capacity (360,000 TPA) confirming that "any change to the stack height in the future may not represent good planning at that time" . The applicant accepted this ruling and proceeded at risk.

Condition 17 of the existing planning permission states: "The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the details submitted with respect to the management plan for the CHP plant to ensure there is no visible plume from the stack".

There are four aspects regarding this planning application that should have been comprehensively assessed by the applicant as set out in the scoping opinion:

1. The landscape and visual impact on the landscape setting and receptors 2. The landscape and visual impact on the landscape setting of heritage: listing buildings and conservation areas 3. The landscape and visual impact on the landscape setting and receptors of Solar Glint and Glare from the stack 4. The landscape and visual impact on the landscape setting and receptors of the plume visibility

6.1 Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

An increase in stack height from 35m to 58m has significant visual impact on local residents. The applicant refers, by way of comparison, to a 47m high tower once used by Marconi but in a different location. Councillors need to be informed, however, that this tower is similar in style to a pylon and not a solid structure. Perhaps a better comparison would be to Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square, which is 10% lower and 20% slimmer than the proposed stack.

It is worth highlighting here that the Governments 2018 ' 25 Year Environment Plan' includes a policy on the beauty of the natural environment in section 6:

Enhancing beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment:

- We will conserve and enhance the beauty of our natural environment, and make sure it can be enjoyed, used by and cared for by everyone. We will do this by:

- Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.

- Making sure that there are high quality, accessible, natural spaces close to where people live and work, particularly in urban areas, and encouraging more people to spend time in them to benefit their health and wellbeing.

- Focusing on increasing action to improve the environment from all sectors of society.

The applicant has submitted two LVIA assessments during the course of this planning application. The ECC councillors should be aware that the first, submitted in September 2017, was found to be deficient in its conclusions and methodology, and omitted key receptors from the study or located them in such a way as to reduce the visual impact of the facility, for example behind a tree. This was determined by an independent review carried out on behalf of PAIN by the Landscape Partnership and submitted to ECC in 2017. For the D&R councillors information the conclusions of the Landscape Partnership's review of the first LVIA are set out here:

14 The Landscape Partnership review of the first LVIA

Overall, the descriptions and assessments within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs) are brief and The Landscape Partnership considers that they do not provide sufficient levels of detail to enable a thorough understanding of the landscape character of the site and its visual amenity.

The methodology used for the LVIA for the 2017 application in support of a stack height of 58m above surrounding natural ground levels comprises a brief addendum to the 2008 LVIA. It has not been prepared in accordance with the current recognised industry best practice guidelines: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition 2013, as produced jointly by The Landscape Institute and IEMA.

The baseline used for the character assessment uses the premise that the site for the proposed incinerator and its surrounding environs is industrial in character.

Even assuming a worked minerals quarry could be considered as ‘industrial’; such judgements take no account of the temporary nature of such characteristics and that a programme of restoration, which has already commenced, will see the workings restored to grassland with woodland blocks. Such a landscape will be far more sensitive to inappropriate change than might an ‘industrial’ one.

The LVIAs also omit a number of important visual receptors that are likely to afford a view of the proposed development, including residential properties to the north, at West Street and Coggeshall Road, many of which are listed, and points on public footpaths in the vicinity of the site, including the Essex Way, which have Medium to High sensitivity. No assessment is made of the effects on more distant footpaths, though it is clear from the photo montages that there would be an effect on views from these paths. This includes views from public footpaths 17 and 18 in the parish of Coggeshall. A set of visualisations are presented that clearly demonstrate that the incinerator would be visible; however. However, no assessment has been undertaken to quantify the degree of change likely to be experienced from these receptors or whether such effect would be acceptable.

The Landscape Partnership considers that the judgements made within the 2017 LVIA have under - estimated the likely magnitude of the visual impact arising from the incinerator; indeed, it is noted that the LVIA records only Negligible changes differences in visual effect for the 108m chimney as compared to the 85m chimney considered in the 2008 LVIA.

From its initial appraisal and review of the LVIA, and from the information available to date, The Landscape Partnership considers that there would be effects of Moderate significance on the following receptors:

- local landscape character: the introduction of extensive built form into what is currently open countryside, and the consequential change to landscape character

- the landscape character of the site: change of land use, loss of historic field patterns, loss of existing trees and other vegetation

The methodology used by the applicant considers a Moderate effect on landscape or visual receptors to be Significant in EIA terms; i.e. these effects should be given particular consideration when determining a planning application.

Overall, it is considered that the LVIA accompanying the application provides insufficient detail to enable a comprehensive and robust judgement to be made regarding the effects of the proposed development on landscape character and visual amenity. Further, it is likely that residual landscape and visual effects, as arising from the proposed development, would be Significant and that they should be a material consideration in the planning balance.

15 We would draw your attention to the recent refusal on appeal of the ‘Pigeon’ development in Coggeshall APP/Z1510/W/16/316. The Inspector found that land north of West Street was part of a ‘valued landscape’ as defined in Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Para 4.7.2: The Landscape Partnership notes that: “the value placed on a landscape is put there by people” and “Those people who utilise this area are the key receptors” and “those who enjoy the recreational value of the land will be particularly sensitive”. Users of public rights of way, “are high sensitivity receptors because they are moving at a slow pace and often are seeking to enjoy the natural environment”." This includes the enjoyment of views out over the wider landscape. The Appeal Decision also refers to the Essex Way, which, “has views out over the wider landscape”.

Para 4.7.3: “The applicant’s ZVI suggests that the incinerator would be visible from points on these paths. The proposed development would therefore result in an adverse effect on views from sensitive receptors within a valued landscape (people using the footpaths). Far from protecting and enhancing valued landscapes the proposal would have an adverse effect on both scenic quality and recreational value" .

A second LVIA was issued in February 2018, whereupon PAIN re-engaged The Landscape Partnership, to carry out another independent assessment of this report. The overall conclusions of The Landscape Partnership’s review are that:

The Landscape Partnership review of the second LVIA

The methodology used for the LVA for the 2018 application in support of a stack height of 58m above surrounding natural ground levels comprises an addendum to the 2008 LVIA. It has not been prepared in accordance with the current recognised industry best practice guidelines: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition 2013, as produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and IEMA.

The baseline used for the character assessment uses the premise that the site for the proposed IWMF and its surrounding environs is industrial in character. The Addendum LVIA claims that “an industrial structure would be introduced into an industrial landscape, so it would not be out of keeping with the current character (Para 4.1.5).”Even assuming a worked minerals quarry could be considered as ‘industrial’; such judgements take no account of the temporary nature of such characteristics and that a programme of restoration, which has already commenced, will see the workings restored to farmland with woodland blocks and nature conservation areas. Such a landscape will be far more sensitive to inappropriate change than might an ‘industrial’ one. Although the applicant claims that the value of the landscape and its susceptibility to change have been considered they have not recorded their findings within the report and it is difficult therefore to see how conclusions have been arrived at.

The LVIAs also omit a number of important visual receptors that are likely to afford a view of the proposed development, including residential properties to the north, at West Street and Coggeshall Road, many of which are listed, and points on pubic footpaths in the vicinity of the site, including the Essex Way, which have Medium to High sensitivity. No assessment is made of the effects on more distant footpaths, though it is clear from the photo montages that there would be an effect on views from these paths. This includes views from public footpaths 17 and 18 in the parish of Coggeshall. A set of visualisations are presented that clearly demonstrate that the incinerator would be visible; however, no assessment has been undertaken to quantify the degree of change likely to be experienced from these receptors or whether such effect would be acceptable.

16 No additional visual receptors have been identified or assessed within the LVA and we do not believe that the visual effects of the development have been properly identified or assessed.

The Landscape Partnership considers that the judgements made within the 2018 LVIA have under-estimated the likely magnitude of the visual impact arising from the incinerator; Indeed, the 2018 LVA states that “Judgements for the agreed list of visual receptors made in the 2008 LVIA have been assessed as being unchanged by the increased stack height.”It is inconceivable that a stack which is 23m higher than the original proposal would not have a greater effect on landscape and visual receptors.

This view clearly cannot be maintained in light of the scoping opinion which anticipates significant effects on landscape and visual receptors as a result of a 20m increase in the height of the stack.

From our initial appraisal and review of the LVA, and from the information available to date, The Landscape Partnership considers that there would be effects of at least Moderate significance on the following receptors:

• local landscape character: the introduction of extensive built form into what is currently open countryside, and the consequential change to landscape character

• the landscape character of the site: change of land use, introduction of built form, loss of existing trees and other vegetation

• Visual receptors including residential properties in the vicinity of the site offering views to the stack, Woodhouse Farm, recently consented housing at the south-eastern edge of Silver End, footpaths within the surrounding countryside and views from a number of transport routes. 7.1.9 The methodology used by the applicant considers a Moderate effect on landscape or visual receptors to be Significant in EIA terms; i.e. these effects should be given particular consideration when determining a planning application. We conclude therefore that the development as amended would be likely to have significant effects on landscape and visual receptors.

In our opinion the information provided does not meet requirements of the Scoping Opinion and does not allow the effects on landscape and visual receptors to be adequately considered in the planning balance.

Given this was the second LVIA that had been submitted by the applicant, it was hoped it would be fit for purpose, yet as described in this professional assessment, it is clearly not the case.

17 PAIN has identified problems over the accuracy of the photomontages. For example, viewpoint 7 (Drawing E732.165 Sunny) allows a comparison between the Sheepcotes Farm mast (47m above existing ground levels) and the proposed stack (58m above existing ground levels). From viewpoint 7 the two structures are almost equidistant. This is seen on figure 3. The coordinates for the stack and existing Sheepcotes Farm mast have been entered into Google Maps.

In the photomontage the stack appears to be the same height as the Sheepcotes Farm mast. However the proposed stack is 11m higher than the mast and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the stack should appear noticeably taller.

Figur e 3: Map showing respective viewpoints being equidistant from viewpoint 7

W = IWMF 7 = Viewpoint 7 = Sheepcotes Farm Mast

18 Figure 4: Extract from viewpoint 7 with an added horizontal line demonstrating the 58m stack appears in the photomontage to be the same height as the 47m Sheepcotes Farm mast

19 Figure 5: Viewpoint 7 showing the deliberate misrepresentation of the stack height

20 A further interesting comparison concerns viewpoint 1, this is illustrated in drawings 732.1/69 (winter) & 732.1/59 (summer). The applicant has inserted an image of the stack into the summer photomontage only. The Sheepcotes Farm mast, which is visible on the left of the photographs in the winter view point is, in the summer photographs, hidden behind a tree. It is not therefore possible to directly compare the visual impact of the two structures in the landscape setting.

This calls into question the accuracy of the images presented. It is possible that the stack may not have been accurately represented in other viewpoints as well.

Figure 6: Extract from viewpoint 1 showing the Sheepcotes Farm mast, partially hidden behind a tree

21 Figure 7: Viewpoint 1 (winter), showing the Sheepcotes Farm mast partially hidden behind a tree

22 Figure 8: Extract from viewpoint 1 (sunny) - a direct comparison between the Sheepcotes Farm mast and the image of the stack is impossible from this angle due to the position of the camera behind a tree

23 Figure 9: Viewpoint 1 (sunny) - a direct comparison between the Sheepcotes Farm mast and the image of the stack is impossible from this angle due to the position of the camera behind a tree

24 6.2 Heritage impact

The applicant has failed to assess the landscape and visual impact upon heritage: n o Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted outwith the Environmental Statement. The EIA assesses environmental impacts and not harm to heritage assets. Its omission could provide the basis for judicial review.

The IWMF will be visible from two conservation zones, Silver End and Coggeshall and many listed buildings, such as Grange Barn, which is a National Trust property. The applicant must be required to assess the heritage impact of this development in full to inform the decision making process. In the absence of any Heritage Statement by the applicant, it is not possible for the decision-maker to comply with Section 66 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990. The EIA Environmental Statement is not adequate for this purpose.

The Scoping Opinion (ESS/24/17/BTE/SPO) stated regarding heritage:

"The application site area includes the Listed Buildings associated with Woodhouse Farm (unoccupied), Allshots Farm House and Barn are both Grade II Listed Buildings, Bradwell Hall, Sheepcote Farm are all within the vicinity of the site Curd Hall a Grade II Listed Building lies approx. 500 m to the north.

It is stated the “degree of change would slight” with respect to the impact upon Heritage Assets, it is necessary for a thorough reassessment to be carried out before such a conclusion can be reached.

Due to the significant change in the height of the stack a heritage impact assessment will be required that specifically looks at the impact the change in height will have on the setting of historic assets. Assessment should be made of the impact upon the three listed farmsteads within the 1km radius (Woodhouse, Allshots, Sheepcote) the conservation area of Silver End, Parish Church of Holy Trinity, Church of St Mary and All Saints, Cressing Temple and Rivenhall Place."

The Landscape Partnership's review highlights Woodhouse Farm and concludes (para 4.5.2) “It is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the landscape setting of the listed buildings.”

The applicant has failed to assess in the impact of the development on listed buildings and conservation areas in a 'stand-alone' Heritage Statement. This was required by the Scoping Opinion but was completely omitted. The Landscape Partnership's review (para 4.5.1) highlights this in the following statement:

“The LVIA does not include a discussion of the potential effects of the development on the landscape setting of historic assets within the area such as Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas. The historic assets within the area include Conservation Areas at Silver End, Coggeshall and Cressing. Clusters of listed buildings can be found within the Coggeshall and Silver End and there is a scattering of listed buildings within a 3.0km radius of the site. Cressing Temple and Grange Barn are significant Grade I listed buildings, each situated approximately 3.0km from the site. Sheepscotes farm and Allshots Farm lie within 1.0km of the proposed site while Woodhouse farm is situated within the site boundary.”

Essex County Council should request both a separate LVIA and Heritage Statement from the applicant.

25 6.3 Solar Glint and Glare study

The Solar Glint and Glare Study was submitted by the applicant in February 2018. This was a response to PAIN's commissioned review, ( Waste Management Facility at Rivenhall Airfield: Review of landscape and visual aspects of planning application Oct 2017. The Landscape Partnership ), of the first LVIA submitted with the current application in September 2017.

Section 4.8: 'The use of reflective aluminium sheeting to clad the chimney stack', of this document reviewed the use of this material to minimise the visual influence of the stack. In summary, the report found that use of the proposed reflective aluminium sheet cladding (“Alcubond Natural Reflect 405”) to be unproven and the examples submitted by the applicant were not sufficient to assess its effectiveness in the application. The applicant had not considered the effectiveness ofthe cladding in different lighting conditions, or the impact of dirt on the surface, and how it would be cleaned."

The review concludes in paragraph 4.8.3: "In order that a robust assessment can be made regarding the effectiveness of the material in minimising visual effects, the applicant should provide a mock-up that can be viewed in similar orientations and in a variety of weather conditions."

The updated 2018 Solar Glint and Glare Study assesses the possible effects of the increased stack height with respect to the potential for glint and glare effects. The Landscape Partnership has reviewed the study. The key findings are set out below:

The level of effect is described as ‘green’ with reference to various criteria used in the aviation industry. This classification is based on aviation safety. We would emphasise that the visual receptors in the surrounding environment are people using public rights of way or transport routes, or people enjoying their own homes and gardens. Whilst they might not experience temporary after images, there is clearly the potential for unwanted reflections which cause a distraction or nuisance.

The potential for glint and glare is dependent, among other things, on the height of the sun above the horizon. Increasing the height of the stack increases the potential for unwanted reflections as experienced from a range of viewpoints. The increase in stack height means that reflections will be possible from higher angles (as shown in Figure 9 of the report). This means glint and glare will be more likely to occur in summer months when the sun is higher in the sky. This also corresponds to the time of year when there is most sunlight, thus increasing the potential for glint and glare effects.

It is acknowledged within the report that times of year when the sun is visible will increase. The average period in minutes per day for a wide range of receptors is also quantified within Table 2. The report states that the average predicted increase in reflection period form the proposed taller stack is 14 minutes. However, the average period for the 35m stack was 14.44 minutes, so the increase is almost double.

The judgements made in the Visibility Assessment column of Table 2: Geometric Reflection Calculation Results Overview of the Solar Glint and Glare Study, are noted to: “relate to visibility only, not glint and glare effects” ; i.e. they are a reproduction of the findings of the LVIA. Clarification is required as to how the findings of the Glint and Glare report are considered in the LVIA.

The effects of glint and glare on a wide range of receptors have been assessed. In particular, we note that Woodhouse Farm would experience on average 211 minutes per day, residential receptors at Kelvedon, including the proposed development off Western Road (Receptor 3) would experience on average 32 minutes per day, various public footpaths (particularly to the south of the site) would be likely to experience increased glint and glare effects, with Receptor 8 experiencing an average of 134 minutes per day. Cuthedge Lane would also experience an average period of 46 minutes. These are substantial amounts of time, particularly for sensitive receptors.

It is further noted that this is an average and the actual period of time receptors experience uncomfortable effects could be longer on some days.

26 and the magnitude of the effect is not generally described.

. The potential effects seem to be somewhat downplayed in the report. Woodhouse Farm for example would experience an average period of 211 minutes per day. This is described as a minor impact, reducing to negligible in year 15.

Potential glint and glare effects could draw the eye and make the stack more noticeable within the view. It is not clear whether this has been taken account of within the LVIA.

It is also important to note that the Solar Glint and Glare Study considers the difference in nuisance between the 85m AOD stack and the 108m AOD stack, concluding, amongst others, that:

"The proposed 23m increase in height to construct a 58m stack does not significantly increase the potential for impacts of glint and glare from the stack" and "The change in terms of glint and glare is not significant".

This is not correct or useful in determining the impact of a new addition to the landscape. It may well be the case that the proposed 23m increase in height does not, in itself, result in a significant impact, but it is the significance of the impact of the whole 108m AOD stack that is important, and which is required in order to determine the true effect of the IWMF; and this assessment information is noticeable by its absence.

The Solar Glint & Glare Study omits the information required to make an accurate judgement of the impact of solar glint and glare upon receptors. It makes dubious claims suggesting that the impact of solar glint and glare would reduce over time and appears to inaccurately calculate the increase (in minutes per day) of solar glint and glare from the taller stack. Finally, the study does not assess the impact of the whole 108m AOD stack. ECC should request a new Solar Glint and Glare Study to address these matters.

27 6.4 Plume visibility

The impact of the increase in height of the tower is significantly greater that the applicant claims especially when compared to the Sheepcote farm tower at 47m. In addition, and contra to condition 17 of the Inspector's report (no plume visibility), the applicant admits that they do not comply with this non-discharged condition as there will be plume viability under certain weather conditions and those similar to the weather experienced for most of February and March 2018 i.e. below -4C. It follows that if the stack height is increased, the plume will be higher as well. The visual impact will be in excess of the 23m determined by the increase in stack height, given the plume will have its own height. A conservative estimate of the plume visibility would be 65m AOD, and therefore beyond the receptors used in the applicant’s already inadequate visual impact analysis. The visibility of the plume because of the stack height increase has not been considered or modelled in any of the applicant’s documentation. This is a significant omission of a very important material consideration and further strong grounds for the refusal of the application to increase the stack height. PAIN commissioned Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling ltd to undertake a review of the plume visibility analysis undertaken by Fichtner to support the proposed IWMF. The following is taken from this expert assessment:

Planning permission (ref ESS/37/08/BTE) was granted by the Secretary of State for the Integrated Waste Management Facility at Rivenhall Airfield, Essex on 02 March 2010 following a Public Inquiry. An amendment to the planning permission was granted on 26 March 2015 (ref: ESS/55/14/BTE).

An application to the Environment Agency (EA) for an Environmental Permit (EP) was submitted in 2016 and duly made on 17 November 2016 (application number EPR/KP3035RY/A001). In December 2016 the EA refused the permit application on the grounds that 'the company failed to demonstrate that the proposed incinerator stack height is BAT'. In February 2017 The Environment Agency (EA) received a new application for an Environmental Permit (EP) for the same site. This second application was successful with a permit issued by the Environment Agency (EA) on 11 September 2017.

On 27 July 2017 Gent Fairhead submitted two planning applications:

1. Full (ESS/36/17/BTE); 2. Section 73 (ESS/37/17/BTE) to change the implemented permission for the IWMF stack height.

of the existing planning permission states ‘ The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the details submitted with respect to the management plan for the CHP plant to ensure there is no visible plume from the stack .’

It is considered that the proposed method for visible plume abatement by means of selective reheating of the plume places undue confidence in the accuracy of the ADMS model used to make the predictions. There has been insufficient testing of the sensitivity of the ADMS model to input parameters which have a high degree of uncertainty. It is considered that this type of plume abatement is not sustainable and alternative methods such as the use of drier feed stock have not been adequately investigated.

The plume visibility analysis should be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. The costs being both financial and environmental and should include calculations of the additional tonnes per year of carbon dioxide (CO 2) released to atmosphere because of the proposed plume abatement. This would allow the viability and sustainability of the proposed approach to be determined. 28 The applicant makes and presents predictions of the number of visible hours per year that will occur without plume abatement. This shows a total of 1,546 hours of predicted visibility plumes over five years (3.5% of the time) and for 2010, the year that gives rise to the highest number, there are 549 hours which is 6.3% of the time. The unabated operation of the facility therefore comes nowhere near the ‘ no visibility plume’ Condition 17.

There is substantial uncertainty associated with the predictions of visible vapour plumes. The substantial uncertainty associated with predictions of visible vapour plumes should have been presented and discussed by the applicant to allow an informed decision on the reliability of the predictions of plume visibility and effectiveness of the proposed abatement.

Given the financial and environmental costs of plume abatement, consideration should be given to whether what is being proposed is sustainable in the long term. No evidence has been presented to allow consideration of whether the proposed abatement is financially viable over the life time of the facility and whether the environment costs justify the benefits.

The applicant’s submission documents around the Landscape & Visual impact of this facility have been found deficient by independent professionals. Neither do they comply with ECC’s scoping opinion. The applicant has failed to address heritage in its entirety. PAIN submits that the poor quality of the applicant's documentation around visual impact is a key and concerning material consideration in this case. That the competency of an applicant to build such a facility to the highest standard must be questioned when they must resubmit their application documents to address unanswered questions and inaccuracies. We submit that its re-submitted documents fail to address key areas of concern or employ the correct and industry wide standards to evaluate them.

29 6.5 The stack: height and design details

There remains a degree of confusion as to the exact height which the applicant wishes to construct.

The current planning applications seeks both to change a condition laid down by the Inspectorate of a previous Secretary of State who, when arriving at a ‘balanced decision based on the applicant’s reports (and not the EA since that permit was not requested until five years later) confirmed that “Any change to the stack height in the future may not represent good planning at that time.”

The drawings presented show a total stack height of 105m but the planning description states 108m, presumably as a result of the extraordinary action of the applicant to increase it by 3m whilst it was being considered by the EA. This may be the result of some oversight by the applicant.

The planning documentation submitted to ECC, the combination of drawings and description, is deficient and for that reason alone the application should be refused.

The applicant states it is at ‘Detailed Design Stage.’ Therefore, there must be significant detail and specification such that a main contractor can be selected to enable the design to progress safely. The requirements are clearly defined in the RIBA process to which its report refers, but this application falls short of providing the required details.

Clearly this has not been provided so there is not sufficient information to allow the D&R committee to make an informed decision. It is not certain how the applicant intends to construct a 108m stack with a base 20m below ground level regardless of the plant layout. Raising a stack of this height is no simple matter and the revised description not only changes the foundation structure of the building, but also impacts upon the entire design and layout. These are signficant considerations not addressed, especially given that the applicant states that they are using ‘new technology never implemented in the UK’ in order to fulfill the Best Available Technology requirements laid down by the EA.

These insufficiencies will have to be addressed at some point by way of yet more planning applications. Little construction has taken place beyond a ’technical start on site’ and since there is a condition for the facility to be fully operational by 2020, it is almost certain that the applicant will wish to vary this condition, altering the timescale of the County Waste Management Plan.

ECC cannot determine the exact nature of what they are approving at this stage, nor what requests might follow.

30 7. The risk to human health

In his 2010 report, the then Secretary of State wrote, (IR13.95):

"Like the Inspector he accepts that the concern of local residents regarding the risk to health would remain as a detrimental impact on the development"

The NPPF establishes that “health” impacts are a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 120 states:

"To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the develoepr and/or landowner".

On this basis the Environmental Statement does not include any assessment of the impact of the development on health. The Council should request the developer to produce a Health Impact Statement relating to the proposed increase in height the stack and the variation of conditions. It will not be acceptable for the applicant to refer to the EA Permit clearance. This is a planning matter for the County Council and must form part of the planning applications.

In terms of their permit, the EA has quoted a 2008 report from Public Health England that:

"Modern, well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants."

This report was updated in 2012, since the original planning permission was granted, but still the risk to human health has been assessed on criteria that is at least five years out of date and, as has been previously stated, does not reflect current knowledge of air quality and its impact on human health. Although the EA has granted a permit for the facility, it is our contention that the information on which they have based their permit is at best six, and at worst ten years out of date.

Consequently, the EA permit and the applied standards do not reflect up to date thinking and knowledge surrounding:

- The impact of air quality on health - The impact of small particles on health - The impact on the developing human (children) - Current Government targets and aspirations for air quality

ECC itself recognises the impact of air pollution on human health, ECC’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy states: “Measures need to be implemented to improve environmental factors, such as reduction in waste and air pollution.”

Duty-bound as it is to protect the health and well-being of its residents, it must be contradictory that ECC is even considering the introduction of high levels of CO2, NOx, and Volatile Organic Compounds as well as Cadmium, Benzine, and Butadiene into an area which already exhibits high levels of pollutants around Braintree. A study by Friend of The Earth substantiates this ( Unmasked: the true story behind the air you're breathing, 2017 ).

PAIN contacted the Essex County Council Director of Public Health (DoPH), Dr Mike Gogarty, in November 2017, enquiring as to why he did not respond consultations on the applications and asking for details of his position on this issue. He provided the following response:

31 I would like to thank-you for your recent correspondence for the planning applications ESS/36/17/BTE and ESS/37/BTE (waste facility at Rivenhall, Essex).

For these types of applications, we do not comment due to their highly technical and scientific nature. We advise that comment is sought through local Environmental Health teams and, if required, the Health Protection team at Public Health England.

This is due to these highly trained practitioners having the expertise to review the scientific and technical data reports that accompany planning applications and I feel are best placed to provide comment, advice on monitoring and provide advice on mitigation measures as needed.

I am aware that Public Health England has been consulted on the permit application for this site and am satisfied that they have responded. I have consulted my colleagues in Public Health England team and have subsequently made a request to the planning team at Essex County Council to submit this planning application for their review and comment. I will receive their advice and will make judgement on any further action that may need to occur locally in conjunction with others responsible for health protection.

Air quality is an important Public Health issue. There is a growing evidence base relating to health with many causal links of varying strengths emerging. In part, due to this, Directors of Public Health were issued a briefing providing advice and guidance on their role in supporting air quality by DEFRA earlier this year. This document included initiatives Public Health can support.

Subsequently at Essex County Council, we are undertaking a number of Public Health measures to address this including;

- The encouragement of sustainable modes of transport including to schools and workplaces. - Promoting Public Health campaigns relating to air quality and improving training support around Active Travel.

- Liaising with District, Borough and City Councils on Public Health there-by improving the local Public Health offer.

- Working closely with Local Planning Authorities on designing in initiatives to ensure that health and wellbeing are integrated into spatial planning design.

The actions being taken are not on the necessary scale to address the rising levels of air pollution. In addition to this, while sustainable modes of transport are being encouraged, there will be an extra 404 trucks a day on the A120 supplying the facility with the waste it will be processing. This is completely contrary to encouraging sustainability within transport and renders any campaign to encourage sustainable transport questionable.

Furthermore, by failing to reply or adequately analyse the application, it is failing to provide sufficient scrutiny ofa serious issue. Even more incredibly, Dr Mike Gogarty confirmed he did not comment on the applications due to their “highly technical and scientific nature”. If the appointed DoPH finds the applications too technical, we question how the D&R Committee at ECC is able to make a judgement when they should be using the expertise of officials such as Dr Gogarty, who should have more knowledge than any member of the Committee. In effect, this is evidence that ECC itself believes it cannot understand the applications and is unarguably a case for referring the application to the SoS.

There is now significant media coverage of the i mpact on health for people living near roads and new Government policies are in place, such as the one to ban the sale of diesel cars and vehicles from 2040, since they produce the same emissions as the incinerator, in terms of small particles and NOX

Given the clear recognition by professional clinical experts, international environmental organisations and ECC itself that air pollution is a serious health issue, the disregard shown for the implications of the facility on the health of residents is indefensible.

32 An example of one of these up to date reports highlighting the impact on health of air quality and pollution of the same nature as that produced by the incinerator is The Royal College of Physicians (RCP), which published a report in 2016: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution .

It states that small particles (such as those that will be released by the IWMF) can cause dementia, Parkinson’s, and cancers as well as having a damaging effect on people with respiratory diseases. It also adds that some of these effects are “well recognised," but air pollution may be associated with a wider range of health conditions such as diabetes and neurological disease, and could also lead to low birth weights and pre-term birth. It argues that “more research is needed to characterise the impacts, but there is no doubt that the health effects of air pollution are significant.”

On the 16th of November 2017, the National Audit Office published a new report on air quality drawing on the RCP report. This report, "Why air quality matters ", makes the following statement:

"Concentrations of pollutants in the air pose a risk to health and the environment. An expert Committee to the Department of Health has estimated that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) increased mortality by the equivalent of 29,000 deaths in the UK in 2008. It considers that on the balance of evidence nitrogen dioxide presents an additional health risk, though it cautions that it is not yet possible to make a reliable quantitative estimate of the size of this effect. Public Health England reports that long-term exposure to poor air quality is a contributory factor to around as many deaths in England as alcohol. The Royal College of Physicians has estimated that the health impacts of air pollution cost the UK £20 billion in 2016."

The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) describes poor air quality as “the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK”.

The effects of exposure to air pollutants include:

- Particulate matters (PM) can cause respiratory effects, such as wheezing and coughing and can worsen asthma and chronic bronchitis. Fine particulate matter, PM2.5, is a health concern due to penetrating deep into lungs and other tissues, including the brain, with a range of negative health effects from both long and short-term exposure, such as increased levels of fatal cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

- Nitrogen oxides (NOx ) cause inflammation of the airways and are associated with reductions in lung function. NOx emissions include both primary NO2 and nitric oxide (NO) with the latter reacting in the atmosphere to produce secondary NO2.

- Carbon monoxide (CO) reduces the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen through the body and blocks biochemical reactions in cells.

- Sulphur dioxide (SO2 ) and Ozone (O3 ) are both respiratory irritants and exacerbate asthma."

Over the past decade across the world, there have been more reports and articles linking air pollution from incineration and air pollution from vehicles that produce the same emissions leading to poor health:

- The Health effects of Waste Incinerators: http://www.bsem.org.uk/uploads/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf

- Incinerator fumes link to infant death. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/5688/Incinerator-fumes-link-to-infant- deaths

- Short-term exposure to low levels of air pollution linked with premature death among U.S. seniors https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/air-pollution-premature-death-u-s-seniors/

- A major study to incinerator incineration on infant mortality rate is set to get started. http://writemark.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/major-study-into-incinerator-impact-on.html

- Legal levels of air pollution are killing the elderly https://qz.com/1166010/air-pollution-even-at-levels-that-meet- national-standards-causes-premature-death/ 33 PAIN has created is own modeling of the impact on health using:

- The applicant’s gas dispersion data

- The same AEROMOD software

- The same weather data

- Google Maps

- Published data on local schools and pupil numbers

Unlike the applicant’s modelling, ours runs over a twelve month period. The animated plume plotter can be seen on PAIN’s website, www.no2incinerator.co.uk

Using this modeling shows when each town and village is likely to be affected, for how long, and to what extent.

- Figure 3 below adds the locality of local schools

- Within 5 miles of the incinerator, 89000 pupils are affected

- Within 15 miles, the figure rises to 259000

Clearly the location of the facility will have a significant impact on a wide area, demonstrating the site of it is completely inappropriate

Figure 10: schools within predicted gas dispersion area

34 Figure 11: impact on Stisted

Figure 12: impact on Braintree

Figure 13: impact on Silver End

35 Figure 14: impact on Witham

Figure 15: impact on Coggeshall

Figure 16: impact on the proposed West Tey Garden Community

36 7.1 Particles

Invisible to the human eye, it is the concentration, even at low levels, of the very smallest particles of pollutants that is causing the most concern. These are the emissions to which we have made reference and which, by and large, were less understood at the start of the applicant’s planning process. What was then acceptable is less so now.

‘Primary particles ' are particles that are emitted or blown directly into the air. There are many sources including emissions from vehicles and road surfaces, chimney stacks, dust from storage areas, spoil heaps, emissions from buildings (ventilation, boilers and solid fuel combustion), materials handling and construction including incineration with vehicles and incineration emitting both PM10and PM2.5particles. These can be carried deep into the lungs where they can cause inflammation and a worsening of heart, asthma and lung diseases.

In 2013, in the UK (population of 63, 905, 297) there were:

- 37,930 premature deaths attributed to Pm2.5,

- 11,940 premature deaths attributed to NO2 and

- 710 premature deaths attributed to O39

These figures provide evidence that there is a huge gap between acceptable standards and damaging air quality.

37 8. CO2

The following sections address the CO2 impact of the facility both in terms of legislation and the embodiment of climate change into planning law and its direct impact on the Braintree area.

8.1 Legislation evolution

In 2010, when the facility was granted permission in its original form as the IWMF, CO2 legislation was embryonic with the CO2 Climate Change Act 2008, and the Committee for Climate change newly formed.

It is fair to say CO2 legislation was not really implemented until the Paris accord in 2015, when 195 UNFCCC members signed the agreement, and 172 have become party to it.

The agreement aims to respond to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The carbon footprint of the facility has not been considered in detail at any point as the facility has evolved.

The reasons for this are:

- That the truck movements associated with the capacity change does not alter from the 404 permitted;

- The removal of geographical limits did not change the number of truck movements;

- Although The S73 variation to increase the capacity to 595,000TPA increases the amount of waste transported, it is still within the 2010 movement limit;

- In 2010, the Secretary of State’s Inspector assumed that the distance travelled by HGVs is based on 100km return trips, primarily to and from Basildon;

- In 2010 the Secretary of State assumed, based on the original application, that the CO2 emissions from the facility were based on 360,000 TPA.

There is, now, the potential for significant increases in CO2 emissions from the facility itself due to the increased capacity and increased ratio of incineration as well as from the increase in the distances travelled by HGVs.

8.2 Impact on the Braintree area

The impact on the local area will be significant and its extent has, in our option, been under-estimated. The image below is a screenshot from the interactive CO2 map found at http://naei.beis.gov.uk/data/local-authority- co2-map an d based on figures submitted to them. We can see that the CO2 is represented by the darker blue and is higher than the Maldon district.

38 Figure 17: CO2 in Braintree

Using this data for CO2 in the Braintree area, and the output of the facility at the supposed date of completion, 2020, predicted emissions are shown in the figure below.

Figure 18: Braintree area CO2 load with the incinerator

The 2015 figures show A roads to be the most significant sources of CO2 loading for Braintree district with only one facility (a brick works) that generates all the CO2 from large industrial installations for 2015 If we now include the figures from our findings for CO2 (600,000 TPA from the facility and 31,000 TPA from the truck movements), the graph changes dramatically when our figures for CO2 emissions resulting from adding the incinerator into the calculations. There is a massive increase in commercial and industrial CO2 by a factor of 6 to over 600,000 TPA with the increase in CO2 associated with the trucks up to 234,000 TPA on the A roads’,up from around 200,000 TPA on the 2015 figures.

39 This completely negates the year on year reduction achieved in the Braintree area since 2012, as shown below:

Figure 19: Braintree area CO2 five year comparison

Using the same data set we calculate that Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester, Braintree, Tendring and Maldon create approx. 4,450 TPA without the facility. This increases to approximately 5,000 TPA with the facility, meaning that it will, if built, increase the overall CO2 emissions across a wide area of the county by nearly 20%.

40 9. The impact on habitats and wildlife

The Council’s EIA scoping opinion required the applicant to undertake an ecological assessment of the development proposals. While we note the applicant completed the ECC Place Services Checklist, the EIA assessment was confined to protected species only. As ECC councillors will be aware, there are no such limitations in the EIA Regulations to consider only protected species and therefore the impact on other ecological interests should not be excluded. This is supported by the NPPF, which establishes that impacts on the “natural environment” are a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 120 states:

“To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner”.

On this basis, the Environmental Statement does not include any appropriate assessment of the impact of the development and ECC should request the developer to produce an EIA Assessment on bees and other insects as well as fauna and flora in relation to the proposed increase in height of the stack and the variation of conditions.

Updated baseline data on current air pollution levels should be used to carry out a valid assessment. To assist the Council, we set out below the considerations that ECC needs to request the applicant to address.

Impacts on fauna:

Animals are exposed to air pollutants in 3 ways:

1. Inhalation of the gases or small particles;

2. Ingestion of small particles suspended in food or water;

3. Absorption of gasses through the skin. Incineration produces gaseous pollutants, including nitrogen oxides.

NOx and sulphur-dioxide affect respiratory systems: birds are thought to be more susceptible than mammals to these pollutants due to their higher respiratory system.

NOx also diminishes the ability of insects (including bees) to respond to floral scents. Insects and bees are unable to distinguish the chemicals produced by flowers to attract them, so they cannot feed, and neither can they pollinate. The plight of bees has not been out of the news for some time. In Coggeshall, the award-winning honey producer Great Tilkey Honey, (the East of England CO-OP's 2017 Producer of The Year) has concerns that their bees will be impacted by the air pollution - they have an apiary on land just a mile from Rivenhall. 1.75m bees could be affected, and it should be noted that there are several other apiaries within a five mile radius.

With regard to bees and other pollinating insects, Dr Robbie Gilring (University of Reading) and Dr Tracey Newman (University of Southampton) found that bees in the lab could be confused by the effects of diesel pollution: "The new findings suggest that toxic nitrous oxide (NOx) in diesel exhausts could be having an even greater effect on bees’ ability to smell out flowers than was previously thought". This research is ongoing, but evidence outlined shows the proposed facility at Rivenhall will negatively impact habitats and wildlife and is contrary to Government Policy at the highest level.

Incineration produces particulates such as heavy metals (e.g. lead, arsenic, and cadmium) dioxins, furans, and mercury. Metals may affect the circulatory, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems of animals. Often organs such as the kidney, liver, and brain are targeted. Entire populations can be affected as metal contamination can cause changes in birth, growth, and death rates.

41 Dioxins build up in body fat. They have been found concentrated in earthworms. This was not lethal to the earthworms, but earthworms are food for birds and small mammals who are now being found to have carcinogenic, reproductive, and immunotoxin effects after exposure to low levels of dioxins.

Acid rain

Acid rain is produced by a chemical reaction in the atmosphere; sulphur dioxide and NOx dissolve in water (hydrogen) becoming sulphate nitrate and hydrogen irons. When it rains, surface water acidification can lead to a decline in, and loss of, fish populations and also decrease in fish growth, egg production, embryo survival and physiological impairment of adult fish. The eggs and larvae of amphibians are also killed by water with a ph of 4.5 or lower.

Impacts on flora

Trees, especially mature examples, are capable of ingesting vast quantities of CO2 but there is a limit and when it has been reached, subsequent intake is harmful. Acid rain weakens trees by damaging their leaves, limiting the nutrients available to them, or poisoning them with toxic substances slowly released from the soil.

Air pollutants, which include sulphur dioxide, have a direct effect on vegetation. It can change the physical appearance of vegetation and is an indication that the plants' metabolism is impaired by the concentration of sulphur dioxide. Harm caused by sulphur dioxide is first noticeable on the leaves of the plants. Leaves in mid-growth are most vulnerable. Trees are also affected by nitrate concentrations in the atmosphere.

Figure 20: Impacts of air pollution on trees and water

We refer to additional material and sources below which may be of assistance:

· 'Bees' ability to forage decreases as air pollution increases'; Science Daily; 2016; www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160706131924.htm

· 'Bees' foraging for flowers 'hampered by diesel exhaust'; BBC News; 2013 www.bbc.co.uk/news/24364637

· 'Air Quality' The National Audit Office; 2017; www.nao.org.uk/report/air-quality

· 'Impacts of Air Pollution & Acid Rain on Vegetation' Air Quality website http://air-quality.org.uk/15.php

42 Impacts on the ecosystem of the River Blackwater

The River Blackwater is a fragile ecosystem; the delight of surrounding communities, it has improved in recent years. This is evidenced by the kingfishers and the return of otters and polecats in the river. Local volunteers for the Essex Wildlife Trust have confirmed their presence through regular site monitoring.

The impacts of acid rain on waterways are detailed above. Should this river suffer further over abstraction, the damage that will occur includes:

"Unsustainable abstraction from rivers and groundwater can change the natural flow regime. This will result in lower flows and reduced water levels, which, in turn may, limit ecological health. Changes and reductions of river flows and groundwater levels can have the following effects:

· Reduced flows can exaggerate the impacts of barriers such as weirs, which can hinder the passage of migratory fish.

· Changes to flow dynamics can increase sedimentation rates, affecting species sensitive to sediment loadings, such as fish, and affecting spawning success.

· Reduced flows can lead to loss of habitats and changes to erosion and deposition patterns which in turn may lead to loss of in-channel geo-morphological diversity and flushing of sediment

- Channel narrowing can occur when flows are reduced

· Induce poorer quality groundwater to move - for example inducing saline intrusion from deep groundwater or from the sea.

· Allow invasive plant species to colonise exposed river sediments, such as gravel bars, temporary islands;

· Where there are increased concentrations of nutrients together with low flows algal blooms may occur

· Change the natural variability of flow. These variations are important to trigger the migration of fish

· Managing Abstraction and the Water Environment"

"If abstraction is having a significant impact on flows in the river then the protected features (such as otters and polecats) could be adversely affected. Maintaining flows in the river will protect the protected features."

(Managing Abstraction and the Water Environment' December 2013 DEFRA page 4)

Changes in the flowrate, water level, acidity or particle level impact upon the ecosystem of a river. Initially changes are small but the loss of habitat and loss of animals at the bottom of the food chain impacts upon the popular animals at the top and which are a guide to the health of a river.

43 10. The impact on ground and surface waters

The PR19 "Blueprint for Water " produced by the Wildlife and Countryside Link states:

"Water matters: it is integral to our lives for drinking, health and recreation, as well as critical to the lives of all plants and animals."

It goes on to say: "Unfortunately, the 2016 State of Nature report found that over half of our UK freshwater and wetland species are in decline, with 13% threatened with extinction." This Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) " 2016 State of Nature report" found that over half of our UK freshwater and wetland species are in decline, with 13% threatened with extinction. Hydrological change was identified as the third most significant driver for negative change, after agricultural practices and climate change.

The River Blackwater is already a protected water course. The Environment Agency has advised that it falls within the 14% of rivers in England classified as 'Over Abstracted'. Any scheme that undermines its fragile integrity should be refused.

The EA further advised (in January 2018 through their Integrated Environmental Planning Team) that the flow rate through Coggeshall Parish remains healthy, however any further consumptive licences, (“except in a few special circumstances”) would not be granted because it would cause detriment to the health of the bottom of the river below the abstraction and the estuary below it. Further consumptive licences could only be granted "during very very high flows over winter, when there is enough water coming down the river that everyone’s needs (including existing licenses and the environment) can be met and there is some spare."

"The Blackwater has this status of over-abstracted at the moment, without the entirety of everyone’s licenses being abstracted. So of course, if everyone abstracted to their permitted maximum, it would make the situation worse. Granting further licenses (apart from the specific circumstances mentioned above) would increase the risk that over abstraction would cause damage.”

The Blueprint for Water calls for "All abstractions to be within sustainable limits and controls in place to prevent deterioration" . The Government's 25 Year Environment Plan (January 2018) aims to "Reform our approach to water abstraction."

Undoubtedly, the River Blackwater is currently outside of 'sustainable limits' for abstraction. Should this facility be granted planning permission, and thereafter further abstraction licences at the levels required by this facility and across the year, the impact on the health of the river at the point of abstraction, and the estuary below it, would be damaged.

There remains uncertainty over the use of water, both within the site and regarding the River Blackwater - which is an important and fragile ecosystem already used for abstraction and as a transport system for drinking and treatment water in Essex (the driest county in the UK). The Blackwater is part of the Ely Ouse to Essex Water Transfer Scheme.

The applicants told the EA during the current permitting application process that they do not intend to discharge any treated fluids to the river. The EA as a result concluded that: "The new application provides for the same 'closed loop' water management arrangements, namely utilisation of an existing abstraction licence to remove and use water from the River Blackwater but with no discharge of process waters back to the river." However, it has also made the following statements:

"Whilst we are confident that the Closed Loop Zero Discharge design as proposed is feasible, we acknowledge that we are considering making an application to the EA for discharge because our detailed design of the WWTP will provide an effluent of such high quality (consistently better than River Blackwater quality standards) in which case the option of discharge to the River would provide increased flexibility for operations (both for Essex & Suffolk Water who control the use of the river water and ourselves) thereby ensuring better husbandry of water resources in the area" (Email ECC 27 Oct 2015).

44 However, on 9th September 2016, the applicant stated via Honace as part of a planning application that:

"The River Blackwater will be the primary source for industrial water for the plant" and that it intends to submit both to the EA and ECC, applications to change the abstraction details and to discharge. This would be the new "closed loop": "The option to apply for a discharge licence always exists and is currently being considered and designed by GFC based on its discussions with the EA and the E&SW. In due course an abstraction and discharge licence application will be made to the EA, and will be subject to their detailed assessment and ultimate approval." (IMWF Coggeshall Abstraction licence supporting statement, Honace September 2016).

ECC has also been supplied with plans showing the route of a discharge pipe to the River Blackwater, entering the river upstream of the abstraction point. The abstraction point now has planning consent. The applicants have therefore presented the authorities with two opposing positions.

It is unknown why the applicants have done this. PAIN is aware of discussions with the EA regarding water, including the size of storage lagoons. Changes have been made to the waste proposal via minerals consents given by ECC such that a temporary lagoon would be used while excavated material is moved around the site via large bunds before the final lagoon arrangements are in place. The applicant states that while the temporary storage would be smaller than the final arrangement, this would suffice as the plant would not be running at full capacity in its early years. However, another way of looking at this is that it introduces more uncertainty alongside the river use uncertainty, and exposes the inextricable link between the waste and minerals considerations.

Given that the applicant has a long history of applying for variances to granted applications, Councillors may consider that PAIN has justifiable concerns on this vitally important aspect of the plant’s operation and that consent is likely to be sought for the discharge of water into the river, as well as further changes to the abstraction-based storage requirements.

For a plant of this size it is essential that there is certainty over environmental impacts However, even while the EA appear to consider that the current permitting application excludes discharge, we note that on page 11 of the Schedule 5 response, number 9, the applicant states that:

"In response to some earlier planning queries GFC confirmed the zero discharge to controlled waters but explained that the option to apply for a discharge licence always exists. In the event an application for a discharge licence is submitted to the EA, it would be subject ot a detailed assessment, and would require further planning approval in conjunction with any new EA licence".

The EA in its 2017 decision stated that:

“In the event the Applicant wishes to discharge liquids into controlled waters, they would need to submit an application to vary the environmental permit. Any such application will have to be determined on its merits if and when it is made to us.”

PAIN contends that there is sufficient evidence that the applicant will wish to vary the use of the River Blackwater.

It is evident both the applicants and the EA clearly anticipate the potential of such an application being made, even while the public are being told something different.

It is instructive to note that the Inspector to the previous Inquiry, whose report was endorsed by the SoS in March 2010 when the original consent was given, reported that water use from outside the site would be "minimal". That was based on the information before him from the applicant about the "Closed Loop" water system.

As well as the uncertainty over the use of the river and lagoons, there is uncertainty about water process flows at the plant. The public exhibition material presented by the EA for the second permit application showed, incorrectly, a flow diagram with a daily, year-round supply of water from the river.

In fact, the current license is limited to winter use only. For the rest of the year the plant would have to rely on rainwater and storage of reprocessed plant water plus the mains supply. Both the rain water and mains water elements are in the context of Essex being the driest county in the UK.

45 The applicants and the EA have failed to provide a clear and real (as opposed to model) flow analysis for water. The applicant has produced various information that is not clear, including in their Schedule 5 response, which fails , like the EA, to point out that abstraction from the river is winter only. Other data from the applicants assumes it rains every day of the year.

A “real world” analysis is needed using actual river flow data from recent years. This would reveal the typical number of days in the winter when the head limit on the current license would prevent abstraction. It would not just be summer droughts, but also winter droughts (such as the winter of 2016/17) that would produce a fall in the lagoon storage of water at the plant unless the applicants intend relying more heavily on mains water.

Actual rainfall statistics are required rather than modelling. The product would then be a more accurate assessment made of net processing flows via the lagoons, over several years, with a resulting actual lagoon storage plot, instead of the simplistic model “sawtooth” diagram on offer.

This uncertainty over water is deepened by the continued reliance of the applicants on “preliminary” drawings for the plant layout and arrangements. Condition 19 of the planning permission states: “No works to install process equipment or plant within the IWMF shall commence until details of the IWMF process layout and configuration have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.”

No condition 19 submissions have been made and as the condition is worded, this could be left until most of the building had been constructed. Therefore, we do not know what the final process arrangements for the plant will be– including for water.

Taken together, all these factors point to the risk of further incremental change via permitting and planning instead of the certainty that should be delivered. It underscores the need for a call-in of the now vast and complex array of planning considerations, or a requirement for a fresh, concise, and full application that sets out clearly what the applicants really and finally want to build and how it would affect the local environment and communities.

46 11. Loss of agricultural land

The loss of agricultural land goes beyond the loss of acreage required to develop the facility and it must be balanced against other sustainability considerations. The facility clearly conflicts with land use policies that seek to protect agricultural land

As shown in the following figure, the emissions and particles will ultimately fall on local farm land; what goes up must come down, and if we apply the same logic that small particles are now found in fish, then particles will also find their way into the food chain via the soil and crops. This is known as a ‘stationary source’ and as such its emitted particles will only fall in a given local area. The EA permit does limit this and acknowledges that there will be some particle emissions. A growing body of research has pointed towards the smaller particles, in particular PM less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), as a metric more closely associated with adverse health effects than other metrics such as PM10 (particles with a diameter less than 10 µm) (DEFRA: Fine particulate matter in the UK, 2012).

The image below uses the same data we referred to in the health section of this report. The dark areas shown represents a build-up of particulate deposit, modelled over a 12-month period. This clearly shows that there is now a ‘known significant impact’ on the surrounding agricultural land.

The long-term exposure to this level of particulates has not be recognised yet alone quantified, but the academic reports referred to herein show that this is an issue and a potential pathway into the human food chain with particles landing many miles from the polluting source on agricultural land or waterways and then into the human body when consumed.

Figure 21: Build up of particulate deposits over a 12 month period

47 12. The impact on highways

Permission was granted in 2010 that allows a limit of 404 trucks per day Monday to Friday, and 202 trucks on a Saturday to deliver fuel to, and remove bottom and fly ash from the facility.

This equates to 136,956 HGV movements per year (in and out of the ‘haul road’ that currently exiting onto the A120 at Bradwell ie (404 trucks per day x 52 weeks x 6 days per week) +(202 Saturdays x 52 weeks ) 136,956) per year to support the incinerator. There are also additional trucks currently permitted to support the gravel extraction on the same site.

While we accept that this permission was granted, the facility has not yet been built. These truck movements remain unknown with regard to the impact on traffic and congestion. However, in the interim, traffic has increased on the A120 between Stansted and Marks Tey. Councillors should review projected traffic management data from when the original permission was granted and compare it to existing road movements, before committing another 404 trucks every day along this busy road.

Further comments on the condition of the A120 include that from ECC councillor Kevin Bentley: "I think we are all in agreement that the current A120 between Braintree and the A12 is not fit for purpose" . The A120 between Braintree and the A12 is one of the most important east to west roads in Essex, yet it has become one of the most congested. This has led to poor levels of service for drivers; poor reliability; and high levels of congestion. The crossing mid-way along the A120 Coggeshall bypass is considered to be an accident blackspot.

Already heavily over-capacity, traffic volumes are set to increase further. The continual increase in traffic over the years, combined with an increasing collision trend, has resulted in greater numbers of delays (a120essex.co.uk).

The Inspector's comments regarding truck moments assumed that each truck journey was 100km: this was based on the geographical limits restricting the waste sourcing to Essex. This limit was removed by ECC in February 2015, meaning that any truck journey going beyond Essex is likely to go over the estimated 100km distance.

The SoS stated in h is 2010 report: "For the reasons given in IR13.96-13.104, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the proposed restriction on the number of HGV movements is reasonable and appropriate and that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the road network (IR13.104)"

The removal of the geographical limits has therefore changed the impact the incinerator has on the wider highways infrastructure and the emissions with much longer journeys, increased noise nuisance and reducing overall safety on the A120. It is plausible that t he Inspector and SoS would have made a different conclusion had this been the case in the application that they reviewed.

48 Figure 22: Extract from A120 consultation showing current capacity of the A120

We have shown the total truck movements per year as 136,956 and we can determine the highways impact by making some reasonable assumptions.

We make our first assumption based upon the distance that trucks will travel to and from Rivenhall. Before the ESS/55/14/BTE variation that allowed waste to be imported from outside the County boundaries, it was anticipated that no return journey would be exceed 100km (62 miles), which is the distance between Basildon and Rivenhall. We have been cautious in estimating distances way beyond the County since there are other operational facilities over a wider geographical area and it is reasonable to assume that logistics companies will utilise whichever is closest to the source of their material.

We have chosen a figure of 150km (93 miles). Given that, half of the trucks (68,479) will make a round trip journey of 100km, which is the return mileage to Basildon, and half will make a trip of 150km.

This would involve a total annual distance travelled of 17,119,500km (68479x100=6847900, 68479x150=10271850. 6847900+10271850=17119500). A modern well-maintained HGV would be expected to return 7.5mpg, so 2,282,600 gallons (8,628,228 litres) would be used.

One litre of diesel contains 10KwH of energy, which totals 86,282,280KwH, or 86,282MwH.

2190 MwH = 1Mw. Dividing 86,282 by 2190 gives a Mw value of 39.4.

Therefore the energy used in delivery and collection of materials to and from the site exceeds the energy produced by approximately 10Mw

Transport for London has issued a document, “In-service Emissions Performance of EURO6/VI Vehicles” in which it calculates the CO2 emissions of vehicles utilizing this most up-to-date emissions criteria.

A fully laden 6 wheel HGV emits 1.8Kg of CO2 per Km of travel. Over the course of some 17 million miles, this equates to 31,000 TPA of CO2; the equivalent weight of 700 fully laden trucks.

49 13. The 25-year plan

Released in early 2018, the Government created a 25-year plan for nature, which is a "national plan of action" intent on "reducing our carbon emissions and building resilience against the extreme weather associated with climate change” (25 Year Plan, 2018).

The foreword is authored by the Prime Minister and states: "Our natural environment is our most precious inheritance...... Its goals are simple: cleaner air and water; plants and animals which are thriving; and a cleaner, greener country for us all."

The 25 year plan also recognises, supports and bolsters the climate change intent of the NPPF legislation and it must be considered in conjunction with the NPPF. The goals of the plan are:

· Clean air

· Clean and plentiful water.

· Thriving plants and wildlife.

· A reduced risk of harm from environmental hazards such as flooding and drought.

· Using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently.

· Enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment.

In addition, we will manage pressures on the environment by:

- Mitigating and adapting to climate change.

· Minimising waste.

· Managing exposure to chemicals.

· Enhancing biosecurity.

The plan states the following within its policies:

"We will achieve clean air by:

- Meeting legally binding targets to reduce emissions of five damaging air pollutants. This should halve the effects of air pollution on health by 2030.

We will achieve clean and plentiful water by:

Improving at least three quarters of our waters to be close to their natural state as soon as is practicable by:

- Reducing the damaging abstraction of water from rivers and groundwater, ensuring that by 2021 the proportion of water bodies with enough water to support environmental standards increases from 82% to 90% for surface water bodies and from 72% to 77% for groundwater bodies.

- Reaching or exceeding objectives for rivers, lakes, coastal and ground waters that are specially protected, whether for biodiversity or drinking water as per our River Basin Management Plans

Thriving plants and wildlife

We will achieve a growing and resilient network of land, water and sea that is richer in plants and wildlife. On land and in freshwaters, we will do this by:

50 - Restoring 75% of our one million hectares of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to favourable condition, securing their wildlife value for the long term.

- Creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network,5 focusing on priority habitats as part of a wider set of land management changes providing extensive benefits."

- Taking action to recover threatened, iconic or economically important species of animals, plants and fungi, and where possible to prevent human induced extinction or loss of known threatened species in England and the Overseas Territories.

Under 'Progress Made' the plan notes:

· "Over 95% of our terrestrial and freshwater protected sites in England are now in good condition, or have management in place to ensure that they are recovered

· Populations of animals have been successfully recovered or reintroduced: there are now over 2,000 breeding pairs of red kites in the UK; otters are now found in every English county and we are testing the waters with the Eurasian beaver in Devon and the Forest of Dean."

Mitigating and adapting to climate change

We have illustrated that the IWMF will have a significant impact on the climate both locally and nationally, especially with regard to CO2, an acknowledged climate change gas.

The 25 Year Plan recognises Ocean Acidification as a "direct result of CO2 emissions" and these must also be tackled nationally and internationally as well as locally. We believe that the following sections are especially relevant and are taken from The 25 Year Plan for your information.

We will take all possible action to mitigate climate change, while adapting to reduce its impact. We will do this by:

· continuing to cut greenhouse gas emissions including from land use, land use change, the agriculture and waste sectors and the use of fluorinated gases

· making sure that all policies, programmes and investment decisions takes into account the possible extent of climate change this century

· implementing a sustainable and effective second National Adaptation Programme

Minimising waste

We will minimise waste, reuse materials as much as we can and manage materials at the end of their life to minimise the impact on the environment. We will do this by:

- working towards our ambition of zero avoidable waste by 2050

· working to a target of eliminating avoidable plastic waste by end of 2042

· meeting all existing waste targets – including those on landfill, reuse and recycling – and developing ambitious new future targets and milestones

Bees

The 25 Year Plan has specifically identified bees as a species that is impacted by particles; there are now several apiaries very near the facility that the particles and CO2 will adversely impact. This has not been considered .

51 14. The EApermit

Given that the operation of the facility cannot be allowed without an EA permit, it is surprising that it was not until 2015 that the initial application was made.

The EA engaged with the local communities by way of organising two nine hour exhibitions, attended by hundreds of people. For many, this was the first time they had realised a) that the project was still ‘live’ after so many years, and b) the extent of the proposed works. Many objections were raised, PAIN was able to submit evidence that differed from that of the applicant, and as a result the application was refused.

The grounds on which it was refused were that:

- The stack height of 38m AOD was sufficient even though the SoS set this limit in 2010, based upon the applicant's assurance that it was correct according to its own calculations

- The emergency plans were inadequate

- The applicant did not demonstrate the use of Best Available Technology

The calculations for stack height and emissions relied on the 360,000 TPA for which planning permission was granted in 2010, even though this had been increased to 595,000 TPA

A second application was made in 2017 which increased the stack height to 55m AOD. However, within days of applying, the applicant revised the height again to 58m. The EA granted this second application but noted that

“While a stack height may have been set under planning, it does not necessarily mean that the planning authority would accept a different stack height, or that we are bound to conclude that the height is acceptable just because it is specified in the planning and the ES will not be breached.”

This guidance had been confirmed by the Council’s Case Officer at the D&R meeting held on2 nd February 2016,

“The environment issues and permitting were the responsibility of the appropriate authority.”

As a consequence, the D&R committee members must:

- Not attribute to their deliberations any weight to the fact that the EA permit has been granted,

- Accept that it is neither required nor appropriate that planning permission be granted on the basis that the EA permit has been granted

- Accept that the revised stack height is recommended by the EA only to meet environmental standards and that some of the standards used have been changed

52 15. NPPF

Whilst it was not in place in 2010, there is now clear direction from the NPPF regarding CO2 with a key objective of achieving sustainable development and the use of renewable and low carbon energy. You will be aware the Government issued for consultation a new draft NPPF. This is a material consideration and needs to be weighed in the balance in planning decisions for the IWMF applications. In particular, paragraph 179 which seeks to improve air-quality and not degrade as proposed in the applications:

"Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan-making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The 2018 draft NPPF also states the following as an overarching environmental objective: "to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy."

With regard to planning for climate change, it is stated that: "new development should be planned for in ways that: avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure; and can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards."

The NPPF requires local government to provide and use a suitable approach to transport. Permitting a facility that requires all the fuel to be trucked in from outside the county is not a sustainable approach irrespective of the Highways position with regard to the A120 capacity as emissions from vehicles will be the same whatever route is taken.

These additional vehicular emissions have not been considered in this application.

53 check section - can't find 'policy 11' 16. Planning integrity

We have a planning process of application > decision > appeal > inspection > determination. In this case the application went through this process resulting in an inspection that granted permission for the IWMF in 2010.

The applicant has essentially done nothing since then other than ask for extensions and variations that continually challenge these original conditions such as removing geographical limits and changing capacities in response to a changing market as their original application became less and less viable.

In addition, all the planning conditions (that have not been removed) have been reinstated but unopposed and accepted by the applicant each time a change has been made to their application ( Example :Revised notice Ref ESS/55/14/BTE ).

This application's round of changes (and it will not be the last) challenges the most stringent conditions imposed to protect against overdevelopment.

Consequently, the D&R committee members must uphold the integrity of the planning system, not undermine it, and send a signal to every developer that conditions imposed by either a County Council or an Inspector can neither be ignored nor overridden.

All of the previous sections add weight and support a case for refusal to change the conditions and to the application for the stack height increase, but the following highlight the reasoning that will allow the councillors to act within their own terms of reference selected from the NPPF and ECC's own documentation:

NPPF: "To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner”.

Essex County Council Organisation Plan 2018/19: The application proposals would be contrary to the Council’s Organisation Plan 2018/2019, which on page 15 seeks to improve the health of people in Essex. Whilst at page 15, the Plan focuses on the environment and recognises “The council has a key role to play as a custodian of our environment for this and future generations. Our stewardship requires that less waste is produced, less carbon emitted…”. An additional statement says: “Producing less waste in Essex is better for the environment and will reduce the cost to taxpayers of its disposal”.

Clearly, permitting the IWMF's operation would be contrary to these requirements of the Plan.

54 17. Conflict

The Cabinet of ECC agreed, presumably in an attempt to show that the County’s role as the planning authority and as a potential client are separate, that a tender exercise will be undertaken to treat the output from the Basildon MBT but that this would “wait” for the completion of Rivenhall and other plants. In addition, ECC is the legal owner, by contract, of the Basildon output and given that:

1. The applicant has repeatedly, including in the current application, stated that Rivenhall could take the ECC-owned Basildon output,

2. ECC has written the incinerator into the Replacement Local Waste Plan,

3. The inspection of the RLWP stated that "it would be remiss not to send the Basildon output to Rivenhall"

There are strong and serious grounds to believe that ECC has a conflict of interest in this matter as it is:

· the Waste and Minerals planning policy authority;

· the statutory planning authority to decide applications such as this;

· the waste disposal authority;

· a potential client of the site if it was approved.

ECC has applied for Waste Infrastructure credits citing Rivenhall in the Essex County Council & Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Final Business Case report ( Application for waste infrastructure credits Final Business case file dated 08-08-2017 ).

If there is the remote possibility of ECC becoming any form of client of the facility, Gent Fairhead or their operator, ECC must not be party in any way to the planning decision as there is a clear conflict of interest which might be seen to suggest that:

· This application has been predetermined by ECC

· ECC has a pecuniary interest in the outcome

· The planning authority cannot be seen to be acting in an objective capacity

· The independence or transparency of any decision that would be made by this committee of the Council is questionable

Consequently, we believe that this application must be refused. However, since it questions the impartiality of ECC to make a fair and robust decision, it has been requested through the National Planning Casework Unit, that the application be called-in by The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for consideration and decision through a Public Inquiry. Only in this way will both transparency and independence be demonstrated. It is within the Council’s remit to request such a process and to do so would demonstrate it is acting in accordance with the Nolan Principles.

In addition, Priti Patel MP believes : 'This is the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Ms Patel has made representation to the Rt Hon. Sajid Javid dated Oct 2017 ref 3511458 stating that her preferred option is for the application to be ‘called in’.

55 18. Community engagement

The documentation submitted by the applicant fails to fully address the issues raised in the ECC scoping opinion. Page 1 states that the applicant be required to undertake direct consultation with consultees. No approach has been made to many key stakeholders including our group, local Parish Councils or schools. There has been a failure to consult properly as required by paragraphs 188-192 of the NPPF: it advises that local planning authorities should encourage applicants to engage with the community. While this is not a formal legal requirement, it is now standard practice and indeed is seen as normal if not expected, especially where applications are of broad significance and of interest to a wider public likely to be affected by a major development proposal

The draft National Planning Policy Framework endorsed by the Minister of Planning states, in para 41, that "They {local planning authorities} should also, where they think this would be beneficial, encourage any applicants ...... to engage with the local community before submitting their application".

The applicant and its advisers have declined several requests from the community to publicly explain their position and carry out this consultation exercise. One such request was for a public meeting in Coggeshall, which saw the applicant encouraged to attend by ECC's Waste and Minerals Officer and by Essex County Councillor Robert Mitchell. The applicant countered with an offer to meet Coggeshall Parish Council only and in a closed private meeting. In consultation with the BDC monitoring officer, CPC declined as it was determined to be inappropriate to meet with a developer in this manner. The applicant was informed of this, but still declined to consult with the public and their own legal agent, when asked to request their client attend, replied that it "would be entirely inappropriate". A sufficient explanation as to why it would be inappropriate was not supplied.

To date, the applicant has not carried out any community engagement on the IWMF, however it has held liaison meetings for its gravel extraction activities.

Community engagement is a critical part of the planning process that was required by the scoping opinion from ECC as noted above, and reinforced by recent Government response to Priti Patel raising the subject of the incinerator in a Parliamentary debate on 11 January 2018.

56 19. Conclusion

With such a significant application that has implications across numerous areas, we have listed below our conclusions, separating them into ones that are more general, and others that are more specific to the stack height increase itself.

The overall conclusion is that the application may not be legal and is certainly not appropriate with respect to climate change, planning principles and practices and the wider environmental impact. As we have demonstrated the applicant is simply misleading the Council with respect to the visual impact, visual dominance in the local landscape, and plume visibility.

19.1 General conclusions

We believe that, given the changes that have been made to the original, granted permission, the Inspector would not come to the same conclusion that was reached in 2010. Ultimately, many of the reasons given for granting permission have been removed. While we can't make assumptions on what his decision would have been, we can say for certain that the IWMF in its current form today is not what he approved in 2010.

We have summarised the main arguments in the context of the original inspection:

1. The need for a facility of the proposed size: there is no need for the facility due to the changing nature of waste policy and the wider waste landscape.

2. The viability of the proposed scheme: the facility is not financially viable as demonstrated by the withdrawal of funding and market changes that will make fuel both expensive and scarce in the future.

3. Flexibility to accommodate future: the facility is not sustainable, moves waste down the hierarchy, can now only be changed in favour of more incineration, does not reflect the changes, direction, and attitudes towards waste with more emphasis on re-use.

4. The effect on the living conditions of residents regarding noise and disturbance, air quality, odour, and light pollution.

5. The extent of any risk to human health: there is risk to human health based on new evidence.

6. The effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the highway network: there is now a significant impact on the local communities from a truck miles perspective as well as the load on the already overburdened A120.

7. A negative impact on ground and surface waters: the River Blackwater is protected and there is no further capacity for abstraction. Evidence exists that a discharge licence is likely to be requested.

8. The implications of the associated loss of Grade 3a agricultural land: there is a loss of land beyond the construction site as well as a pathway for particles into the human food chain.

9. The negative effect of the proposal on habitats, wildlife and protected species: there is now significant additional wildlife occupying the site as well as bees and other endangered species.

10. Sustainability: the facility is unsustainable, producing tonnes of CO2 every year and requiring 17m truck miles to deliver fuel. The amount of high carbon energy needed to deliver fuel to the facility exceeds the amount of low-carbon energy the applicant's low-carbon energy output.

11. Landscape, heritage and visual impact: there will be a significant negative effect on receptors.

57 In summary, we are very concerned that the size of the scheme now proposed has the following features:

· The recycling element in the scheme has been reduced by some 60%

· The proportion of incineration has been increased by approximately 65%

· The climate change aspect has not been considered however this is now significant and a duty of ECC

· This approach turns Essex into a net importer of waste

· The facility will generate up to 404 additional HGV movements per day on the even more (compared to 2010) congested and hazardous single carriageway section of the A120 near Bradwell

· Communities along local roads will be more affected by HGVs than in the original proposal

· The current version of the plant is a “merchant” facility with the potential that waste travels over long distances being routed by Satellite Navigation Systems. Since the A120 is already heavily congested it is highly likely that drivers needing to make on-time deliveries will seek alternative routes to the site and attempt to navigate single lane roads in the vicinity

· Over 200,000 TPA of toxic residue of bottom and fly ash will go to landfill in special facilities and currently these have not been identified

· Were this scheme to be approved, it would substantially undermine the environmental, planning and financial case required to provide new housing in Essex and whether or not such might be provided in ‘Garden Communities’ around the Braintree or Colchester areas.

19.2 Stack height increase: specific conclusions

The following are specific conclusions regarding the stack height. These are supported by the above overall conclusions as they are inexorably linked:

· The facility does not have planning permission to be built as it is designed and as it has been permitted by the EA against these designs, therefore no weight can be attributed to the existing permissions

· The EA refused the permit based on the permitted design that is unchanged since 2010, despite planning revisions

· The EA granted a permit based on a non-approved stack height and massively increased incineration

· Applying for an increase in stack height contravenes the prescribed conditions as laid down by the SoS/Inspector's conditions

· No planning weight must be given to the granting of the EA permit as stated by the EA

· Planning within the NPPF now has significant weight

· The 25-year plan must be considered as part of the planning process and is current advice by Government

· There is a significant national impact with respect to climate change that must be considered impartially and not by the D&R committee

58 · Developer's delays now mean this project flies in the face of current attitudes and thinking regarding incineration, reuse and CO2 and the applicant has progressed at their own risk

· There have been over 3,000 objections to the applications

The facility does not represent current thinking with respect to waste and plastics, as incineration simply ‘turns plastic into CO2’

· The application deviates from the original inspector's balanced perspective, removing the AD and MBT element in favour of incineration

· There will be a significant visual impact on the landscape as this is predominantly flat - it will be extremely prominent and is significantly higher than anything nearby including the existing Marconi radar tower at 48M. (please see section 2.5.1 above)

· The whole process of applying for changes to conditions set down by an independent planning inspector and SoS following an appeal undermines the planning process with planning creep and constant change despite imposed conditions intended to limit the incinerator's overdevelopment

There has been an overwhelming shift in recent months in the attitude to plastics waste, with a greater focus on reuse and recovery. There are now greater levels of collaboration with industry to achieve the same results as seen in northern Europe. Prime Minister Theresa May has stated: "It will be more effective to work with industry to reduce plastic waste than it will be to legislate." There are other examples where efforts are being made to move away from incineration and to reduce quantities of waste. Together, these would limit the amount of fuel that is being supplied to facilities, thus reducing the demand for these. For instance, Essex County Council itself has publicly committed to remove single use plastics and straws from the council building. In addition, as technology progresses, methods are changing for recycling of currently unrecyclable plastics. These present opportunities within waste, rather than inconveniences. Arguments are even now being posed that burying waste in the ground could mean that once technology develops ways to use it more effectively, it could simply be recovered and then utilised as a valuable resource. Professor Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA, argues: “If there is one way of extinguishing the value in materials fast, it’s to stick it in an incinerator and burn it. We could be storing them until we have the innovative technologies to re-use and turn them into something more positively valued. "

The application requires more detailed scrutiny at best, but the reality is this application should be rejected outright. It is imperative that the committee seriously questions whether there are any grounds to grant this application, or whether based on the arguments and evidence set out above, there is any question as to whether they should be refused. If there is any doubt at all, then permission cannot be given.

Given the conditions outlined by the Inspector in 2010 that have not been complied with by the applicant and the significant effects beyond the immediate locality and conflict with national policies on important matters then asan alternative to declining this application, Essex should itself ask for it to be Called-In by the Secretary of State for his determination as it certainly raises many issues of more than local significance. It is equally important given the identified conflicts of interest for the decision to be seen to be taken on an independent and transparent basis fully in compliance with the Nolan Principles, all of which apply to local government.

59 April 2018 www.no2incerator.co.uk [email protected]